Is it me or does the new NY gun laws actually ban all handguns now?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Chicago is a liberal police state. Criminals have all the rights there. In Illionois you cant get a license to carry a gun without submitting your fingerprints for a background investigation, which takes like 6 weeks.
 

Agent11

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2006
3,535
1
0
Something you may or may not know.

Cars are not protected by the constitution. Congress could ban the internal combustion engine tomorrow and have every legal right to do so.

Guns on the other hand are protected by the 2nd amendment.
 

Venix

Golden Member
Aug 22, 2002
1,084
3
81
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/04/robert-farago/washington-cease-fire-bus-we-must/

(this is a pro-gun site from what it looks like)



This is kind of why encouraging widespread gun ownership in response to these mass shootings is stupid. Accidents might happen, the guy with a gun might get in an argument and in the heat of the moment pull the trigger.

That's a press release by Washington Ceasefire, an anti-gun organization.

The "22 times more likely" study is absurd, and Washington Ceasefire's gross distortion of it even more so. The study's statistic is about injuries, not just deaths. Half of the injuries are suicides (and attempts). Over 85% of the assaults and homicides are committed with guns that aren't owned by the homeowner. Gang members and other violent criminals are counted as firearm owners. Only defensive shootings are counted; the 99% case of stopping a crime without shooting the criminal is not counted.

The author has published multiple studies on the safety of firearms in the home, all with wildly differing conclusions. One claims a 43:1 risk, another 22:1, and yet another 2.7:1. Amusingly, the last study also found that keeping shotguns and rifles in the home increases safety. In any case, only fools and liars would quote these studies as proof of anything.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
That's a press release by Washington Ceasefire, an anti-gun organization.

The "22 times more likely" study is absurd, and Washington Ceasefire's gross distortion of it even more so. The study's statistic is about injuries, not just deaths. Half of the injuries are suicides (and attempts). Over 85% of the assaults and homicides are committed with guns that aren't owned by the homeowner. Gang members and other violent criminals are counted as firearm owners. Only defensive shootings are counted; the 99% case of stopping a crime without shooting the criminal is not counted.

The author has published multiple studies on the safety of firearms in the home, all with wildly differing conclusions. One claims a 43:1 risk, another 22:1, and yet another 2.7:1. Amusingly, the last study also found that keeping shotguns and rifles in the home increases safety. In any case, only fools and liars would quote these studies as proof of anything.

Karmy is a fool and a liar, but we already knew that.
 

TallBill

Lifer
Apr 29, 2001
46,044
62
91
Chicago is a liberal police state. Criminals have all the rights there. In Illionois you cant get a license to carry a gun without submitting your fingerprints for a background investigation, which takes like 6 weeks.

That's not even to carry a gun, that's to own one in your house. Plus you have to qualify at a range, which are illegal in city limits. I may or may not have had some explaining to do if someone broke into my apartment.
 

micrometers

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2010
3,473
0
0
Something you may or may not know.

Cars are not protected by the constitution. Congress could ban the internal combustion engine tomorrow and have every legal right to do so.

Guns on the other hand are protected by the 2nd amendment.

Are you familiar at all with Heller? The 2nd amendment doesn't protect the AR15. It only protects access to *a* gun, not *any* gun.

So basically, normal law abiding citizens have the right to obtain basic weaponry, but not these high capacity deadly weapons. That's what the 2nd amendment means.
 

micrometers

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2010
3,473
0
0
That's a press release by Washington Ceasefire, an anti-gun organization.

The "22 times more likely" study is absurd, and Washington Ceasefire's gross distortion of it even more so. The study's statistic is about injuries, not just deaths. Half of the injuries are suicides (and attempts). Over 85% of the assaults and homicides are committed with guns that aren't owned by the homeowner. Gang members and other violent criminals are counted as firearm owners. Only defensive shootings are counted; the 99% case of stopping a crime without shooting the criminal is not counted.

The author has published multiple studies on the safety of firearms in the home, all with wildly differing conclusions. One claims a 43:1 risk, another 22:1, and yet another 2.7:1. Amusingly, the last study also found that keeping shotguns and rifles in the home increases safety. In any case, only fools and liars would quote these studies as proof of anything.

It's on a pro-gun site, for one thing.

For another, the figure varies but it's still over 10x.
 

Agent11

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2006
3,535
1
0
I suggest you read Heller and Mcdonald Karmy.

What is protected under the 2nd is determined by what is accepted practice in the USA. Rifles have had a long history of private ownership in the USA, and the AR15 you mentioned is one of the most popular and widely owned semi automatic rifles.

Do a search on Mcdonald v Chicago for 'due process' this will give you a crash course as to why you fail.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
 
Last edited:

Venix

Golden Member
Aug 22, 2002
1,084
3
81
It's on a pro-gun site, for one thing.

For another, the figure varies but it's still over 10x.

2.7 is greater than 10? I guess that answers the "fool or liar" question.

My favorite part of that study are the other risk factors for homicide:

5.7 - Any household member used illicit drugs
4.4 - Home rented
4.4 - Any household member hit or hurt in a fight in the home
3.7 - Case subject or control lived alone
2.7 - Gun or guns kept in the home

Yes, renting your home and living alone are more dangerous than owning a firearm. The study further notes that "virtually all of this risk [of owning a firearm] involved homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance."

This is the absolute best the anti-gun groups can come up with. People whose close friends and family want to murder them are less safe around firearms. Shocking!
 

micrometers

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2010
3,473
0
0
I suggest you read Heller and Mcdonald Karmy.

What is protected under the 2nd is determined by what is accepted practice in the USA. Rifles have had a long history of private ownership in the USA, and the AR15 you mentioned is one of the most popular and widely owned semi automatic rifles.

Do a search on Mcdonald v Chicago for 'due process' this will give you a crash course as to why you fail.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

In the District of Columbia
The D.C. government has indicated it will continue to utilize zoning ordinances to prevent firearms dealers from operating and selling to citizens residing in the District, meaning it will continue to be difficult for residents to legally purchase guns in the District.[67] Additionally, the District enacted new firearms restrictions in an effort to cure the constitutional defects that the Supreme Court had identified in Heller, specifically three new provisions: (1) the firearms registration procedures; (2) the prohibition on assault weapons; and (3) the prohibition on large capacity ammunition feeding devices. In response, Dick Heller challenged these new restrictions filing a civil suit named Heller v. District of Columbia (Civil Action No. 08-1289 (RMU), No. 23., 25) where he requested a summary judgment to vacate the new prohibitions. On March 26, 2010, the D.C. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina denied Dick Heller's request and granted the cross motion, finding that the court "concludes that the regulatory provisions that the plaintiffs challenge permissibly regulate the exercise of the core Second Amendment right to use arms for the purpose of self-defense in the home. "[68]
Dick Heller's application to register his semi-automatic pistol was rejected because the gun was a bottom-loading weapon, and according to the District's interpretation, all bottom-loading guns, including magazine-fed non-assault-style rifles, are outlawed because they are grouped with machine guns.[69] Revolvers will likely not fall under such a ban.[70]
On December 16, 2008 the D.C. Council unanimously passed the Firearms Registration Emergency Amendment Act of 2008[71] which addresses the issues raised in the Heller Supreme Court decision, and also puts in place a number of registration requirements to update and strengthen the District's gun laws.[72]
Scalia's opinion for the majority provided 2nd Amendment protection for commonly used and popular handguns but not for atypical arms or arms that are used for unlawful purposes such as short-barreled shotguns. Scalia stated: "Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid." "We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179." "We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns." "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service – M-16 rifles and the like – may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty."[73]
[edit]
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,568
3
0
In the District of Columbia
The D.C. government has indicated it will continue to utilize zoning ordinances to prevent firearms dealers from operating and selling to citizens residing in the District, meaning it will continue to be difficult for residents to legally purchase guns in the District.[67] Additionally, the District enacted new firearms restrictions in an effort to cure the constitutional defects that the Supreme Court had identified in Heller, specifically three new provisions: (1) the firearms registration procedures; (2) the prohibition on assault weapons; and (3) the prohibition on large capacity ammunition feeding devices. In response, Dick Heller challenged these new restrictions filing a civil suit named Heller v. District of Columbia (Civil Action No. 08-1289 (RMU), No. 23., 25) where he requested a summary judgment to vacate the new prohibitions. On March 26, 2010, the D.C. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina denied Dick Heller's request and granted the cross motion, finding that the court "concludes that the regulatory provisions that the plaintiffs challenge permissibly regulate the exercise of the core Second Amendment right to use arms for the purpose of self-defense in the home. "[68]
Dick Heller's application to register his semi-automatic pistol was rejected because the gun was a bottom-loading weapon, and according to the District's interpretation, all bottom-loading guns, including magazine-fed non-assault-style rifles, are outlawed because they are grouped with machine guns.[69] Revolvers will likely not fall under such a ban.[70]
On December 16, 2008 the D.C. Council unanimously passed the Firearms Registration Emergency Amendment Act of 2008[71] which addresses the issues raised in the Heller Supreme Court decision, and also puts in place a number of registration requirements to update and strengthen the District's gun laws.[72]
Scalia's opinion for the majority provided 2nd Amendment protection for commonly used and popular handguns but not for atypical arms or arms that are used for unlawful purposes such as short-barreled shotguns. Scalia stated: "Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid." "We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179." "We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns." "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service – M-16 rifles and the like – may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty."[73]
[edit]

So AR-15s, being both popular (in fact they're the fastest growing segment of the gun market) and very effective in the role of militia duty, should be protected under the law. Thanks for that.

No wonder the gun grabbers are freaking out. They have to stem the sales soon before even more Americans own such weapons, because then the popularity alone would pass the Heller Decision! :D
 

micrometers

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2010
3,473
0
0
So AR-15s, being both popular (in fact they're the fastest growing segment of the gun market) and very effective in the role of militia duty, should be protected under the law. Thanks for that.

No wonder the gun grabbers are freaking out. They have to stem the sales soon before even more Americans own such weapons, because then the popularity alone would pass the Heller Decision! :D

Read the last paragraph.

An AR-15 is pretty much the same as an M16.

Also, DC outlawed the AR15 and other assault weapons and post-Heller it was held as constitutional.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,568
3
0
Read the last paragraph.

An AR-15 is pretty much the same as an M16.

Also, DC outlawed the AR15 and other assault weapons and post-Heller it was held as constitutional.

M-16 has faull-auto capability where the AR-15 does not, big difference. But I suppose that point might have escaped Scalia.

Regardless, it was held Constitutional for now. But what happens when AR-15s and the like become more common? Sounds like whether a firearm is protected under the 2nd amendment is loosely decided by:

1. Popularity
2. Potential for militia use

Handguns are exceedingly popular as the choice for self defense, but I can hardly picture a militia of handgunners. I guess SCOTUS thinks lever-action cowboy rifles are sufficient for militia purposes, and technically I guess they are.

In any case, DC gun laws are not only laughably stupid but laughably effective. You can blame Virginia all you want, but fact is our murder rate per capita is less than 1/4 that of DC's, despite our gun freedoms. Seems it's more a DC problem than a gun problem.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
I hope we get this law struck down. Cuomo has a history of abusing legal and regulatory ambiguity for his purposes and as this bill is his baby, rushed through without due consideration and debate without public input. Combined with our already draconian laws, we don't really know what this all means, but it will favor Cuomo's Presidential aspirations. It's all about him and his image.

Hopefully this will be struck down in its entirety and we can start all over and get something well considered.
 

micrometers

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2010
3,473
0
0
DC went on to ban guns that reloaded from the bottom.

That includes 1911's.

And it's constitutional and in accord with Heller.

What was left legal were revolvers -- *a* handgun, not *any* handgun.

So yes, AR15 bans are completely constitutional.
 

Agent11

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2006
3,535
1
0
Really?

http://mpdc.dc.gov/service/firearm-registration-district-columbia
Firearms Eligible for Registration
To protect residents from unsafe handguns that are more prone to accidental discharge, lack safety devices, and may be prone to firing when dropped, the Council of the District of Columbia identified the California Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale (also known as the California Roster of Handguns Determined Not to be Unsafe) as a source list for safer handguns. Handguns on the roster have passed firing, safety, and drop tests and are certified for sale in California by the California Department of Justice. The Chief of Police is authorized to periodically revise, by rule, the roster of handguns permissible for sale.

The regulations will establish a District Roster of Handguns Not Determined to be Unsafe that will include the California list and handguns that are on the safe gun rosters of Maryland and Massachusetts. These regulations will allow for handguns with superficial differences from handguns on the roster – such as color or grip material – to be registered. The regulations will also allow for handguns that are removed from the California list for administrative reasons to remain on the District list.


http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/ Enter colt, all those with 1991 A1 in their names are 1911's. . . Many handguns with bottom loading clips as well.
 
Last edited:

micrometers

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2010
3,473
0
0
M-16 has faull-auto capability where the AR-15 does not, big difference. But I suppose that point might have escaped Scalia.

Regardless, it was held Constitutional for now. But what happens when AR-15s and the like become more common? Sounds like whether a firearm is protected under the 2nd amendment is loosely decided by:

1. Popularity
2. Potential for militia use

Handguns are exceedingly popular as the choice for self defense, but I can hardly picture a militia of handgunners. I guess SCOTUS thinks lever-action cowboy rifles are sufficient for militia purposes, and technically I guess they are.

In any case, DC gun laws are not only laughably stupid but laughably effective. You can blame Virginia all you want, but fact is our murder rate per capita is less than 1/4 that of DC's, despite our gun freedoms. Seems it's more a DC problem than a gun problem.

Untrue. It's about broad classes, not specific models. Handguns cause most murders in the country and DC wanted to ban handguns across the board. Scalia said basically that handguns right now are the predominate firearm instrument of choice for self-protection. In the meanwhile, specific models of handguns, bottom loading handguns, were made illegal and that still complies with Heller.

I personally would have let Heller register his 1911, but DC was able to deny him registration of the weapon and it in compliance with Heller.
 

micrometers

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2010
3,473
0
0
Really?

http://mpdc.dc.gov/service/firearm-registration-district-columbia
Firearms Eligible for Registration
To protect residents from unsafe handguns that are more prone to accidental discharge, lack safety devices, and may be prone to firing when dropped, the Council of the District of Columbia identified the California Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale (also known as the California Roster of Handguns Determined Not to be Unsafe) as a source list for safer handguns. Handguns on the roster have passed firing, safety, and drop tests and are certified for sale in California by the California Department of Justice. The Chief of Police is authorized to periodically revise, by rule, the roster of handguns permissible for sale.

The regulations will establish a District Roster of Handguns Not Determined to be Unsafe that will include the California list and handguns that are on the safe gun rosters of Maryland and Massachusetts. These regulations will allow for handguns with superficial differences from handguns on the roster – such as color or grip material – to be registered. The regulations will also allow for handguns that are removed from the California list for administrative reasons to remain on the District list.


http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/ Enter colt, all those with 1991 A1 in their names are 1911's. . . Many handguns with bottom loading clips as well.

They probably changed the law later on. I would have, honestly.

BUt you can google articles showing that Heller tried to register his 1911 and was barred from doing so.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
440
126
4 (or more) massacres and killings of random strangers in the past six months using an AR15.

LOL WHAT??? Not 6 months at all.

First off, there are so many conflicting reports from the media over Sandy Hook, that stating emphatically that the only weapon used there was an AR-15 is not something that can be said with factual certainty. Until the official investigation report is released, do not use that one as an example. This happened on Dec 14th.

Clackamas Mall shooting on December 11th 2012. 4 days prior to Sandy Hook. This one had Jacob Tyler Roberts using an AR-15 as the primary and only weapon. No conflicting reports on this one unlike the Sandy Hook shooting.

The Sikh Temple shooting in Wisconsin was done with a Springfield Armory XD(m) 9mm handgun that had an extended magazine. That happened on august 5th. No AR-15 used.

The Aurora shooting in the theater during the premier of the Dark Knight was done INITIALLY with an AR-15 that had a 100 round drum attachment. The gun jammed quickly into the firing and Holmes switched to his 12 gauge shotgun and handguns after that. The vast majority of the killings and deaths were done with his remington 870 12ga shotgun and his Glock handgun. This was on July of 2012 which is at the 6 month mark about now.

The Carson City shooting did involve an AK-47, but the shooter only went after the National Guardsmen at their table in IHOP. He shot those 5 and 5 others in the restaurant that were considered incidental to his main targets. He killed himself in the parking lot later. He also had 2 handguns on him that he never fired. That was Sep of 2011 which is over a year ago.

There are previous mass shooting, but if we are arbitrarily breaking down crime statistics by year, only 3 major mass shootings happened in 2012 that used an AR15. And one of those was barely used, as a shotgun ended up being the primary weapon.

But if you aren't satisfied thus far. I'll post info about the others as well.

July 7, 2011 in Grand Rapids Michigan. Dantzler went on a shooting spree killing his ex-girlfriend and her family before leading police on a chase while shooting at bystanders. He wounded 2 bystanders. All done with a Glock 9mm.

Jan 8, 2011 in Tuscan Arizona. Loughner attacked US Rep Giffords during a meet and greet. He killed 6 and wounded 12. All done with a Glock 9mm.

Aug 3, 2010 in Manchest CT. Thornton went on a killing spree at Hartford Beer Distributor. All done with a Ruger SR9 which is a 9mm handgun.

Nov 5, 2009. Fort Hood. Major Nidal Malik Hasan went on a mass shooting spree with an FN Herstal 5.7 Tactical Pistol. Again a fucking handgun.



So what part of your lie are you trying to convince people off? There have not been 4 mass shootings in the last 6 months that used an AR-15 or even in the last YEAR. Going back over the records of the mass shooting, the vast majority of mass shootings or even killing sprees (which are defined as mass shooting that are spread out over time and places) are done with handguns. There are as many mass shootings attributed to AR15s as there are to pump action shotguns over the last 30 years. The whole notion of singling out 1 class of gun for a proposed ban that isn't even the most proliferate in usage for mass shooting is retarded.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
440
126
Oh as for Heller SCOTUS decision, it was heavily implied by Scalia that if Heller had brought up a claim against requiring a permit to even own a firearm being Constitutional, that it have been struck down. But since Heller seemed fine with the requirement in the first place, they didn't make a ruling on that as it was not part of the case.
 

Cerb

Elite Member
Aug 26, 2000
17,484
33
86
So what part of your lie are you trying to convince people of?
That scary rifles, looking like what militaries and revolutionaries use, are bad evil weapons. But diminutive guns, like standard and compact pistols, which with all this modern technology, look like waterguns, ferchristsake, aren't worth worrying about, because it's hard to explain to people that they should be scary. A big stubby black tacticool AR-15 type rifle, though? Scary right off the bat.

But, you know, once the ball is rolling...

I'm really not sure it's reconcilable. Their, "think of the children," is, "everyone should be docile. Then, it will be flowers and rainbows." Our, "think of the children," is, "a hidden subcompact, or snub-nose revolver would be way more effective at protecting children than classroom stationary."

I'd almost bet that Karmy and DCal wouldn't even get a little smirk, watching Demolition Man. Now, I need to go cover myself in jello. BRB...